Allahabad Court March 1982 Judgments
Mohan Singh Bedi Vs. Phool Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All465
ORDERS.C. Mathur, J.1. This is landlord's petition arising from proceedings for release' and allotment of residential accommodation under Section 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Additional District Magistrate, Rent Control, Lucknow rejected the landlady's application for release and allotted the premises in dispute to Phool Chand, opposite party No. 1. His order has been confirmed by the learned District Judge. The landlady Smt. Leela Devi therefore preferred writ petition in this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition she sold the building to Mohan Singh Bedi who applied for substitution and was brought on record in place of the original petitioner vide Court's order, dated 4-8-1980.2. For the purpose of deciding this petition it is not necessary to state in detail the case set up by the respective parties before the authorities below. Suffice it to say that the case of Leel...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ghanshyam Hotel
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC47(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. To this application filed under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, seeking review of the order dated 24th December, 1979, passed by this Court under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, a preliminary objection has been raised to its maintainability both on lack of statutory provision and absence of power to correct error of law in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.2. That a court or an authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers cannot review its order unless specifically empowered by statute is settled beyond controversy. In P. IV. Thakershi v. Pradyuman : AIR1970SC1273 , it was held:It is well-settled that the power to review an order is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication.3. A half-hearted attempt was made by the learned standing counsel implying such power in Section 22 of the Act. The submission, however, proceeded on a misconception as the setting of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Ram Lal Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All290
ORDERH.N. Seth, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Jai Ram Lal questions the validity of the order dated 26th August, 1977 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the Controlling Authority, Rehand Region, Mirzapur, rejecting petitioner's request for compounding the offence under the U.P. Regulations of Building Operation Act, if any, committed by him and directing that certain constructions set up by the petitioner be demolished. The petitioner has also questioned the validity of the order of the State Government dated 17th December, 1977, dismissing his revision application directed against Controlling Authority's order dated 26 August, 1977.2. The petitioner was constructing a room in the shape of open varandah 10' x 9' on the first floor of his house. One Sarwar Ali moved an application dated 5th March, 1975 before the prescribed Authority, Rehand, through the Secretary, Corruption Eradication Samiti, Rotaertsganj alleging that the petitioner had after i...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep NaraIn Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD941(All.)
1. The only point involved in this appeal pertains to the assessee's claim for deduction for repairs as contemplated under Section 24(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").2. The assessee is an individual and owns certain properties at Faizabad and Lucknow. The assessment year is 1977-78 and the relevant previous year is the financial year ended 31-3-1977.3. In the present appeal, we are concerned with the Lucknow property situated at Shah Nazaf Road. The assessee has let out this property to three tenants, namely, Larsen Tubro, Balmer Lawrie and Western Electronics. In this appeal, we are concerned with the portion of the property let out to Balmer Lawrie and Western Electronics. In the lease agreement entered into between the assessee and the said two tenants, the parties have agreed to the following condition regarding the repairs to be carried out by them, respectively. (f) To carry out repairs of the nature of maintenance such as white washing and oil painting, etc., as a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Radhey Mohan Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1982
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(All)299; [1982]135ITR372(All)
K.N. Seth, J. 1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act 1957, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the' circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the firm, M/s. Radhey Mohan Narain Laxman Babu, was an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The assessee is a partner in M/s. Radhey Mohan Narain Laxman Babu. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assesses claimed relief under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the W.T. Act in respect of his interest in the firm. The WTO found that the said firm was engaged in trading in printed cloth, had no fixed assets of its own and was getting its trade requirements of goods from others on job work basis. The firm's work itself did not involve manufacturing or processing work and, consequently, he rejected the assessee's claim. On appeal, the AAC upheld the claim of the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Kanodia Cold Storage Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD895(All.)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the A AC wherein he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the ITO made under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, wherein he had refused to accede to the rectification of the mistakes pointed out by the assessee.2. The assessee is a firm. The assessment year is 1975-76 and the relevant previous year is the financial year ended 30-5-1975.3. Inspired by the following observation made by the AAC, while disposing of the appeal for the assessment year 1976-77, The next contention of the appellant relates to the addition of Rs. 4,644 out of law charges claimed at Rs. 10,285. A sum of Rs. 1,800, which relates to the preceding year, is obviously to be disallowed and with regard to the other item debited in this account, the expenses are vouched and verifiable. The addition in this behalf will, therefore, be limited to Rs. 1,800 only and a reduction of Rs. 2,844 is allowed here.the assessee moved an application und...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Moti Lal Khatri
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD675(All.)
1. This is a departmental appeal against the order of the AAC made under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1977-78 and the relevant previous year is the financial year ended 31-3-1977.3. While framing the assessment for the year under appeal, the ITO made an addition of Rs. 32,100 on account of unexplained investment in the construction of a house property. Against the said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the AAC on the following grounds : i. That the learned ITO has erred in rejecting the return income of the assessee without considering the facts of the case. ii. That the learned ITO is not justified in adding back Rs. 32,100 as unexplained investment in the house construction. The investment made in the house property by the assessee is fully proved and thus the addition made on this behalf is liable to be deleted.4. The AAC, in his appellate order dated 5-11-1980, was of the view that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Km. Darsha Ahuja and Etc. Etc. Vs. University of Agra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All359
A.N. Varma, J. 1. These five petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the major controversies involved therein are the same. The petitioners have been declared failed at the third and final professional examination of M.B.B.S. course held in September/ October, 1981 by the Agra University. The petitioners were all students of Sarojini Nayudu Medical College, Agra which is affiliated to the Agra University, Agra, The relief claimed in the petition is that the results of the petitioners in so far as the subjects in which they have been declared failed be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents commanding them to declare the petitioners as passed at the said examination. 2. The petitioners have assailed the legality and propriety of their results broadly on two grounds : (1) The Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act laid down the Scheme of Examination for the various professional examination...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Nath Vs. Nand Lal Khare
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All489
K.M. Dayal, J.1. Heard Sri Gyan Prakash,for the appellant. No one has appeared forthe respondent. The appeal arises out of anexecution proceeding in respect of an awarddated 6-1-1970. Under the award the claimof the plaintiff was decreed and he wasallowed to realise the same by attachmentof pay of Sri Nand Lal Khare at the rateof Rs. 150/- per month to the extent ofRs. 200/-. It was further provided that theplaintiff may realise the decretal amountby attachment of provident fund in thelifetime or after his death. The trial Courtrejected the objections and proceeded withthe attachment of Rs. 150/- per month asper award. The lower appellate Court hasallowed the appeal and held that the amountto the extent of Rs. 200/- could not beattached in execution of the decree.2. The argument of the learned counsel is that the award was binding on the party and had the effect of a compromise decree. Consequently if the party agreed not to take protection of any statute then he cannot be permitted to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Babu Lal Jiwan Ram and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(All)286; [1983]141ITR156(All); [1982]10TAXMAN95(All)
Seth, J.1. The Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was a partial partition in the HUF of M/s. Babu Lal Jiwan Ram and Company under Section 171 of the Income-tax Act ' (I.T.R. No. 1123 of 1977)2. In the connected case the question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,636 from the assessment of the assessee's HUF in view of the acceptance of the assessee's claim of partial partition made under Section 171 ?'3. The matter related to the assessment year 1972-73. One Babu Lal Kedia had a son, Jiwan Ram and a daughter, Jiwani Devi. Jiwan Ram had three sons, Krishna Kumar, Vijai Kumar and Mani Lal. Till the assessment year 1945-46, M/s. Gangadhar Babu Lal was assessed in the status of an ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »